Posted on 02/29/2008 7:13:12 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Air Force decision awarding a $35 billion aircraft contract to a team including the European parent of Airbus landed like a bomb in Congress on Friday, drawing howls of protest from lawmakers aligned with the loser, America's Boeing Co.The Congressional delegation from the Seattle area said they were "outraged." Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision "at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress" in hopes of reversing it.
Boeing has big facilities in both Seattle and Wichita, which stood to gain from the long-term project to build up to 179 aerial refueling tankers. Although Boeing was favored to win the contract, the Air Force awarded it to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and Europe's EADS.
Conventional wisdom was running so strongly against Northrop-EADS in some corners of Capitol Hill that Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office issued a statement late on Friday declaring Boeing the winner. It was swiftly retracted.
Lawmakers from Alabama, where Northrop and EADS plan to do some tanker work, were effusive in praising the Air Force.
"I thought all along that the Northrop Grumman-EADS proposal was the best," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, told reporters. He said the contract would bring nearly 7,000 jobs to the state.
On the disappointment of Chicago-based Boeing's allies, Shelby said he understood. "If Boeing had won this contract ... I would have been concerned about it."
As for Tiahrt's vow to seek a review, Shelby said, "The Pentagon and the Air Force have made their decision and I think it was for the right reasons and I'll stand by that."
The decision was sure to result in a debate, with a formal protest also possible, said defense consultant Jim McAleese.
The tanker deal will give EADS a huge boost in the U.S. defense market, making it the second biggest foreign supplier behind Britain's BAE Systems, analysts said.
"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refueling tanker -- a tanker assembled in America -- by Americans," said Alabama Republican Rep. Jo Bonner.
Bonner represents Mobile, Alabama, where assembly work on the aircraft will be done, although it will largely be constructed in France at facilities of EADS' unit Airbus.
Airbus, with large facilities in Toulouse, is Boeing's arch-rival in the global commercial airliner business.
Wichita's Rep. Tiahrt said, "I am deeply troubled by the Air Force's decision to award the KC-X tanker to a French company that has never built a tanker in its history.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."
Tiahrt said he will seek to have the decision reviewed by both the Pentagon and Congress. "At the end of this laborious process, I hope the Air Force reverses its decision."
Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, along with six other lawmakers from the state said in a joint statement: "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military.
"We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force's justification."
(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Richard Chang)
Not actually carries - that max load is about 25% greater.
But the MRTT has a 2-3 tomes advantage in fuel delivered at a distance.
The Boeing burns a greater fraction of the fuel load in getting out there, and also has runway lenght issues in taking off with a full fuel load
I would like to correct my previous statement about fuel capacity. The EADS offering carries about 20% more fuel. It also can carry more troops or pallets. It looks like a better aircraft and no unions!
Since the years of the $600 hammer, Congress has threatened the Armed Forces. They’ve been told to give contracts to the lowest bidder and save taxpayers’ money. The Air Force did its job and now Congress is upset. I don’t get it.
I really question this decision. I think Boeing builds much better product. But I love seeing Cantwell and Murray’s panties in a twist. I’m conflicted.
Yes, Joe Taxpayer here...
Which of these deals gave us the most bang for the buck? Which will minimize the outlay required to provide necessary refuling capability?
I really don't care about anything else.
Not so fast. I agree America should have first choice if we can provide the same quality. Some are saying we can’t. Some of the senate is in an uproar. Why? I don’t consider a lot of then very patriotic and I don’t want them micro managing our military. There are lot’s of factors to think about here before taking a stand IMO.
Leftie fruits?
Yup, maybe the euro'S will buy (more) f35's now.
Yes, it is idiocy. One hundred and seventy-nine airframes will be built in France instead of the U.S. using American tax dollars. Which is 179 airframes that will not be built by American workers.
And I do not care if any of our allies are using it or whether it is a good plane or not. So your argument falls into the “non sequitur” category. Besides, what about the following?
TITLE 41 > CHAPTER 1 > § 10a. American materials required for public use
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and unless the head of the department or independent establishment concerned shall determine it to be inconsistent with the public interest, or the cost to be unreasonable, only such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been mined or produced in the United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, shall be acquired for public use. This section shall not apply with respect to articles, materials, or supplies for use outside the United States, or if articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind to be used or the articles, materials, or supplies from which they are manufactured are not mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality. This section shall not apply to manufactured articles, materials, or supplies procured under any contract the award value of which is less than or equal to the micro-purchase threshold under section 428 of this title.
So we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over price.
It is what it is.
The subtle point lost on some is that Northrop is a very large AMERICAN company and like Boeing, it has international partnerships.
Had Boeing got the contract, in all likelihood the same percentages of foreign participation would be in play. It just happens to be the case that they lost, and so they are not talking about what it would have been had they won.
That's the reality of it, now you may return to your populist sulking.
I’m a Republican from Alabama, but I’m an American first. Kill this deal. Its both unwise for national security and betrayal of the American defense industry.
What next? Build our Aircraft Carriers in Europe too?
What an asshat thing to say. I suppose that the first stringbag to roll out of the Red Barn was in-flight refueling capable.
Evidently Boeing builds tanker-capable geese as well, because one of them just pumped a full tank of crap into the Senator.
I am not sure we can. Not when we spend gajillions of dollars on fielding a handful of sexy stealthy fighters when we could have still fielded a top-line fighter without a canopy that alone cost half a million dollars. Instead, we let our front-line fighters break apart in flight while pouring billions into a fighter that will never be bought in enough numbers to fill the void.
You tell me: can America really step up to the challenge with this kind of mentality?
Well, they are union, after all...
Okay. What about the Marine Corps' AV-8 Harrier? Or the Navy's Goshawk trainer? Is not British Aerospace or the former Hawker-Siddely involved with EADS?
The challenge, as you are aware, has nothing to do with national defense and everything to do with "laundering pork" to certain Congressional districts by creating the appearance of military need. The winning porkers are happy today - the losers are caterwauling. If the defense budget were actually based on defending the country it would be at least 50% smaller.
"Boeing" is in no way synonymous with "United States of America" - it's a big, corrupt, multi-national, anti-free market entity that would sell American national security interests out in a heartbeat if a chance arose to generate new revenues in China. Northrop/EADS isn't much better, but in this case they appear to have proposed a superior solution.
True but it's a matter of degree.
Both are based on existing, in service, designs...one American and one French/German.
Airbus is designed around european suppliers, labor practices, and standards;
all those nits and gnats aren't going to be replaced with US made just because the kits are shipped to Alabama.
Sorry-American military equipment should be manufactured in the US by US companies for national security reasons.
Actually Boeing came in cheaper...it is very fuzzy as to why this contract was awarded to Airbus. I think the GOP is lining its’ pockets-no other explanation for losing all those good jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.